Press Releases

April 10, 2012
– Some of the recommendations contained in the report of the Advisory Group to
the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector released today “would
seriously undermine the identity of denominational schools”, The Iona Institute
has said.

The
Advisory Group report makes a number of good suggestions about divestment of
some denominational schools to new patron bodies. Divestment is necessary to
achieve better diversity of school choice.

However,
the recommendations contained in Section VI and VII would actually undermine
this effort because if implemented in full they would seriously damage the
ability of the remaining denominational schools to be meaningfully
denominational. If they cannot be meaningfully denominational, then we will have
less educational diversity, not more.

Section
VI deals with so-called ‘stand-alone schools’, that is those schools which are
the only ones to be found within a given radius.

Sections
VI and VII set out how to make these schools more ‘inclusive’, but this would be
achieved at the price of their identity and ethos.

For
example, the recommendation that Rule 68 of the Rules for National Schools be
deleted, rather than amended, would seriously weaken the right of denominational
schools to permeate the school day with their ethos.

The
recommendation that displays of religious objects “ought not to be exclusive to
any one faith or tradition but should have a balance, reflective of the beliefs
of children attending the schools” would appear to mean that a Christian school
could not display a Christian symbol, say a crucifix, on its own on its
premises.

In fact,
it would appear that anything which would specifically mark out a Christian
school as a Christian school is to be discouraged.

The
report claims it is trying to uphold the rights of children and parents who do
not belong to the faith of the school.

However,
in the Lautsi judgement the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Italy can
display crucifixes on their own on the walls of State schools and this does not
breach the rights of non-Christians.

If this
is the case with State-run schools, it is obviously much more the case with
denominational schools.

Commenting on the
recommendations, Dr John Murray of The Iona Institute said: “The
recommendations in Section VI and VII present themselves in the language of
‘human rights’ but in fact they are a swingeing attack on the rights of parents
who wish to send their children to meaningfully denominational
schools”.

He
continued: “If
implemented, they would mean in effect that denominational schools could not
permeate the day with their ethos, could not display Christian symbols on their
own, and could not enrol children of the faith of the school ahead of other
children.”

Dr Murray
concluded: “It
is to be hoped that Minister Ruairi Quinn will not accept these particular
recommendations as they stand”.